If you think of it, no one said anything new on Christiane Amanpour’s Egypt episode; Mohamed ElBaradei quoted the same statistics and the same argument about change and National Democratic Party mouthpiece Ahmed Ezz continued with the regime’s 30-year-long mantra coupled with the past decade’s “we are changing and developing and prospering” bla.

Although not new, Ezz’s comments highlighted the schizophrenia rooted in almost all government arguments. In less than 5 minutes he managed to move from the prosperity fantasy — “Egypt is going through a very exciting time. And Egypt is developing in almost every walk of life. And the political diversity taking place in Egypt today is unseen, unwitnessed in my generation” — to the Hollywood B-movie thriller — “it’s code red alert in Cairo 365 days of the year.”

Supposedly, we are in a time of peace. This is often hailed as the overarching achievement of our wise president, an achievement that extends in lineage to a time before Mubarak came to power. Sadat had promised Egyptians prosperity after the war and the Open Door policy is supposed to have made that true in the 70s. And since 1981, it was prosperity at full throttle.

But it was also the reign of the state of emergency. Almost 30-years of emergency laws justified by a state of mutilating danger (terrorists, Israelis, Palestinians, Lebanese, Iranians, drug dealers, headbangers, satellite TV, stuff in the air, bloggers, activists, journalists, aliens, etc). We are targeted, we are in danger, they are out to get us (regardless of the identity of those “they”), etc.

The multi-purpose Masr Mostahadafa (مصر مستهدفة Egypt is targeted) line has proven useful in dismissing a documentary about police torture as well as condemning any critical statement made by any foreign entity known to man.

Even on the local level, those ‘dangers’ are often used as a justification. In response to April 6 Youth Movement’s notification to the Ministry of Interior of their planned demonstration on April 6, 2010, the ministry notified the group of its disapproval, “Due to the current security situation and public disturbance marches like this can cause in the capital.”

Almost the same line was used in response to the MPs’ notification of their May 3 march.

The “current security situation” seems to be too fragile to handle anything; it’s a wonder that we are still breathing.

The use of this argument in these contexts proves yet again that the laws are in place only to protect the regime, to stifle the opposition. It’s often used to override the judicial process and court orders, to silence critics, to threaten activists.

“Nazeer’s renewed detention gives lie to the Egyptian government’s claim that it doesn’t use the emergency law to imprison people with dissenting views,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “The government is not addressing a national security emergency but persecuting a writer whose blog may have upset some people.”

Many Islamists and activists face more or less the same treatment, justified and facilitated by the emergency laws.

This has been going on for so long it’s not surprising any more.

The baffling part, however, is how (or why) top government officials can seamlessly combine the constant threat argument with the promotion of the strides the government took towards economic development and political reform. Doesn’t investment require safety? Isn’t political reform supposed to go hand in hand with social stability?

The government is promoting the country as safe and secure to foreign investors while painting the “code red alert” picture during any political argument. But isn’t it worried that those foreign investors would eavesdrop to its security scare talk? Or does it assure them with the heavy hand of its interior ministry?

The current regime has become an expert in giving the façade of democracy to the world, without any tangible progress on the ground, as one foreign politician/academic once told me. Ezz tried to employ the same rhetoric, telling Amanpour about the 240 publications, the 15 TV networks, the regime’s tolerance of ElBaradei, and about the “good Egyptians who are demonstrating … for either political or economic or other grievances” near the parliament. The fact that such grievances are not addressed, or that the emergency laws are used to protect the political survival of this regime is beside the point of course.

It was refreshing though to see that such argument is easily rebuffed.

Ezz’s claim that the emergency laws, which he compared to the US patriot act, can only be removed “when the Middle East is at peace with itself” was met by Amanpour’s stunned “Oh, my goodness.”

Why wouldn’t she say that? The Patriot Act and similar legislations in different countries have been heavily criticized for stifling freedoms — in countries where other civil rights legislations ensure a sort of balance and civil monitoring of state practices and possible violations. We are still struggling to get anything close to that systematic protection of civil and human rights. In addition, our regime has often said it can’t import democracy, but obviously it can import anti-terror laws, which is expected to be the new name of the amended, more systematically abusive version of our current emergency laws.

It’s safe to say that the countdown has officially begun. This year’s parliamentary elections will pave the way for the presidential elections in 2011, drawing clearer image of what to expect the following year.

But until then, it doesn’t need a genius to pinpoint the ills plaguing our opposition, supposedly those at the frontline of the battle for change. No single coalition seems to hold its original members for more than six months, regardless of the idea that first brings them together. Popular movements lose momentum almost instantly. Political parties are either too inconsequential to make a difference or are waist deep in internal conflicts between power hungry ‘politicians’, concerned with nothing more but their share of an imaginary power pie. Even the Muslim Brotherhood, whose solid structure and strong social presence had once refuted any allegations of internal rifts, is now seeing these rifts materialize and spiral out of control.

That’s on the institutional level.

On the more individual one, there isn’t a single charismatic leader that enjoys the approval of the majority, at least among the circles of politicians and journalists closely following the rickety non-ruling-party political scene. In fact, it seems that it’s only those in these small circles of activists, politicians and pseudo politicians, journalists and few interested intellects that actually know any names of Egypt’s opposition landscape.

Even with the remote possibility of those opposition figures putting aside their not-so-grave differences (or should I dare say personal interests) to stand behind one candidate from amongst their ranks, this specific candidate would find it extremely difficult to reach out to those outside the aforementioned circles, to find the mass appeal so desperately needed to propel drastic political changes.

That’s why Mohamed ElBaradie is perfect for the job; he has the star power that most of our opposition lack. Yes star power; like the entertainment industry, politics is all about star power. He has the mass appeal required for any candidate to challenge the current rulers and advocates pretty much the same political platform promoted by the opposition.

That’s why it was surprising that many opposition politicians and political parties opposed his emergence on the scene with the same enmity in which the government launched its attack on the Nobel Peace Prize winner, often with false unfounded accusations.

(Un)fortunately, the man is not running for president; the terms he had put for himself as requirements to such endeavor were clear from the very first media interview. The terms, most notably constitutional changes and guarantees of the integrity of the elections, are unlikely to materialize in Egypt in these two years. ElBaradie, like one writer put it, is on his way to be Egypt’s leading dissident, not future presidential candidate.

Supporting ElBaradie doesn’t mean supporting Mubarak’s next presidential opponent; it’s uniting behind one man that has the potential of greasing the wheels of change, setting them in motion.

He arrives today (Friday, Feb. 19) at 3 pm, and plans have been set for a grand reception the Cairo International Airport; not by the government of course, but by popular movements advocating change. This doesn’t mean that the government is not involved; in addition talks of extra security measures to control or thwart the grand reception, there are reports of financial gains. One news agency said they were asked to pay LE 1,000 to gain access to airport to take photos; something automatically granted by their press pass.

Gamal Mubarak, or Jimmy, and his posse have exhibited a change in tone throughout the speeches they made during the NDP conference. Their criticism of opposition is not new. But the aggressiveness and bluntness of the criticism is. The anger and the not-so-subtle threats are new to such public speeches.

It’s early, however, to determine whether this change is worrying or healthy. Does it mean they are seriously acknowledging the opposition? Would this signal a crackdown? Or is it all a stunt so people like me would get too occupied with analyzing the change of tone rather than taking the NDP to task for its failures over the past 28 years?

But definitely it isn’t early to start considering the options. The Jimmy Option (JO) and the Unknown Opposition Option (UOO).

Before starting, let’s eliminate one of the annoying questions that has become a staple of such discussions.

The most annoying question/hypothesis is: ‘If it’s not Gamal, then who? There is no one, no other option.’

Aside from the fact that there are a lot of options, a lot of capable people who can lead this country, who ever said Gamal was qualified? Not because he can afford the luxury of exposure or the buzz surrounding his imminent rise to power, would this mean he can lead a country. He’s certainly not more qualified than others who can’t afford to get a camera to follow them around. Those ‘others’ would definitely shine and rise in a more welcoming system. But that’s another story.

So, if you rid yourself from the de facto proposition that it’s only the NDP that can rule — relying of course on the experience of the past 28 years where no other regime came close to power — then you can eliminate the one-and-only-Jimmy hypothesis from the argument. At least until the end of this article.

Plus, Jimmy won’t bring about any change. His existence in, like his rise to, power needs to be protected by a police state. Such a police state feeds on the current corruption, the venomous social structure, the ailing education and whatever else that plague this country. Thus for the younger (seemingly more progressive) Mubarak to remain in power, he has to keep many of the ills of this country intact.

But what can we do? Or to be more accurate, what can the politicians who publicly oppose Jimmy’s rise to power do?

To be realistic — because before answering such utopian question a dose of reality is needed — the NDP does control everything. Even though I would like to think that the presidential elections in 2011 would be a do-or-die battle for opposition and for many of us who hope for change, the fact is there isn’t much hope. At least not for 2011.

This doesn’t mean, however, that there isn’t anything to do. There is. A lot.

It’s never too late.

This will unfortunately bring me back to the annoying question, specifically the part about being no other option.

Opposition has been relatively successful — so far — in meeting in the same room. Politicians representing different ideologies have temporarily let go of these differences to agree on certain principles: The need for change and the rejection of the inheritance of power, i.e. JO.

That’s commendable for sure. But a change in course, in strategy, is indispensible.

The discourse of merely calling for change that worked with the Kefaya Movement years ago has to mature now. The opposition forces that are merely campaigning against the JO are slowly and unknowingly shooting themselves in the foot. It’s because they are united against one thing without providing an alternative, their own option, i.e. UOO.

With two years to go before the elections, the UOO needs to be groomed for power — starting today, if not yesterday. For the public to take the united opposition forces seriously (that if they stay united), they have to be presented with a UOO that would stand in strong comparison with JO. A UOO that the public and the opposition can rally behind.

Even if the UOO doesn’t win (which right now sounds like the plausible scenario), the opposition would have put the wheel of change into motion.